How is that any difference than him having to pay for your sex partner aka wife by increasing his health care premium? Also you may have kids which adds to his burden as well by your own arguement.

Cause this is the practice of society for as long as it's been around. You know, when we were #1 in the world and the wife/husband procreated and produced children. That is the only reason that my sex partner/wife should be allowed to freeload off my plan. Lucky for the ones that don't have kids and are just freeloaders I guess. Point being we have enough of them as is (freeloaders) and why would we want more sex/partners (who can't produce children) get the benefits when they sould be constructive members of society, get a job and get their own benefits.

But since we just give about everything to freeloader who suck of Uncle Sam's tit in the country I can understand why we will just give in on this as well. Lots of gay voters out there I'd imagine. Sigh.

Cause this is the practice of society for as long as it's been around. You know, when we were #1 in the world and the wife/husband procreated and produced children. That is the only reason that my sex partner/wife should be allowed to freeload off my plan. Lucky for the ones that don't have kids and are just freeloaders I guess. Point being we have enough of them as is (freeloaders) and why would we want more sex/partners (who can't produce children) get the benefits when they sould be constructive members of society, get a job and get their own benefits.

But since we just give about everything to freeloader who suck of Uncle Sam's tit in the country I can understand why we will just give in on this as well. Lots of gay voters out there I'd imagine. Sigh.

So because I don't have any kids I am a freeloader? What about people who are infertile, are they freeloaders too? Also by your arguement should we extend healthcare benefits for the unmarried heterosexual partners who have kids?
Also just for the record, your own bible says that gays have been around since the beginning too.

So because I don't have any kids I am a freeloader? What about people who are infertile, are they freeloaders too? Also by your arguement should we extend healthcare benefits for the unmarried heterosexual partners who have kids?
Also just for the record, your own bible says that gays have been around since the beginning too.

No, you pay for your own now if you decided to just freeload of your hubbys insurance then yes but it's cool cause we have excepted that due to the fact that there might be potential to have a kid which is the reason for the current system. Infertle people who are not raising kid (could always adopt) and just use someone elses insurance are defiantly freeloaders but could be excepted cause we believe that there is always the chance to have kids which is the basis of the current system. As for the unmarried heto with kids well then just make the right decision and be good examples for the kids by getting married = no brainer. The current system serves it's purpose and already has enough freeloaders on it as in. Why do you want more??

I guess it's your decision how to interperet the bible. I know what passages you speak of and to me it just shows that people make horrid choices all through history.

Cause this is the practice of society for as long as it's been around. You know, when we were #1 in the world and the wife/husband procreated and produced children. That is the only reason that my sex partner/wife should be allowed to freeload off my plan. Lucky for the ones that don't have kids and are just freeloaders I guess. Point being we have enough of them as is (freeloaders) and why would we want more sex/partners (who can't produce children) get the benefits when they sould be constructive members of society, get a job and get their own benefits.

But since we just give about everything to freeloader who suck of Uncle Sam's tit in the country I can understand why we will just give in on this as well. Lots of gay voters out there I'd imagine. Sigh.

Curious why you think all of the sudden health benefits will not be provided by one half of the gay couple? You seem to be framing your argument around the idea that all benefits will come from the taxpayers... Thats called a "strawman."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw

No, you pay for your own now if you decided to just freeload of your hubbys insurance then yes but it's cool cause we have excepted that due to the fact that there might be potential to have a kid which is the reason for the current system. Infertle people who are not raising kid (could always adopt) and just use someone elses insurance are defiantly freeloaders but could be excepted cause we believe that there is always the chance to have kids which is the basis of the current system. As for the unmarried heto with kids well then just make the right decision and be good examples for the kids by getting married = no brainer. The current system serves it's purpose and already has enough freeloaders on it as in. Why do you want more??

Seems like a twisted way of thinking.... So my wife and kids are freeloading off of me and Im freeloading off my employer by using the health benefits agreed upoun when I was hired in?

And the basis of the current system is to have children? Are you approaching this from a religious or realistic standpoint?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw

I guess it's your decision how to interperet the bible. I know what passages you speak of and to me it just shows that people make horrid choices all through history.

One of the most glorious ideas about being an American is the freedom and your right to make horrid choices. Along with that right comes the responsibility of living with those decisions and I have yet to see any homosexual movement suggest they want their lives or way of life subsidized by the Government. Just equal treatment under the law. Blacks fought this battle, women fought this battle, the Jews fought this battle... Its a shame we havent learned from out history.... Look what we did to the Japanese/American CITIZENS.

Chiefwoohaw demonstrates exactly why i am not a fan of religion. Most people who are highly religious are not intelligent enough to think for themselves and use logic to work through an issue. What they can do though is run to their book of faith and look up what their religion thinks of the subject and then respond.

On top of that i officially rank chiefwoohaw at about the same incredibly low intelligence level as Steveo. You sir need to go read all of your posts again and pay close attention to them, maybe then you will see just how stupid you sound.

Chiefwoohaw demonstrates exactly why i am not a fan of religion. Most people who are highly religious are not intelligent enough to think for themselves and use logic to work through an issue. What they can do though is run to their book of faith and look up what their religion thinks of the subject and then respond.

I'm pretty sure the bible (or any other religious book) doesn't have specifics. I think 'most' would be a bad way to put it. I know of Plenty of 'overly religious' people that use logic to solve thier problems. They don't blindly follow the book. or a pastor for that matter.

Romans actually talks about renewing our minds and testing God's will. You can't just read out of a book and do that. It takes intellegent thought and introspective to do that.

Quote:

On top of that i officially rank chiefwoohaw at about the same incredibly low intelligence level as Steveo. You sir need to go read all of your posts again and pay close attention to them, maybe then you will see just how stupid you sound.

Thanks for showing me another example of an overly religious retard.

I'll also go on record to say that Steveo is not retarded. He's just a jerk. Some of the comebacks he comes up with and things he says are quite intelligent.

Also, did you just post that to diss Chiefwoohaw or did you forget to post your opinion on the subject? It takes less intelligence to make fun of someone then it does to try and figure out what they are saying and have a conversation with them.

Curious why you think all of the sudden health benefits will not be provided by one half of the gay couple? You seem to be framing your argument around the idea that all benefits will come from the taxpayers... Thats called a "strawman."

I don't think this but I'm sure some will freeload and not work to supply their own benefits. It will cause premiums to rise to the new amount of freeloaders on the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by opie

Seems like a twisted way of thinking.... So my wife and kids are freeloading off of me and Im freeloading off my employer by using the health benefits agreed upoun when I was hired in?

And the basis of the current system is to have children? Are you approaching this from a religious or realistic standpoint?

Yeah, basically that's exactly right. It is excepted by society so therefore it's not a big deal due to the role your wife has of supposedly raising your children. Realistic, what does religion have to do with anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by opie

One of the most glorious ideas about being an American is the freedom and your right to make horrid choices. Along with that right comes the responsibility of living with those decisions and I have yet to see any homosexual movement suggest they want their lives or way of life subsidized by the Government. Just equal treatment under the law. Blacks fought this battle, women fought this battle, the Jews fought this battle... Its a shame we havent learned from out history.... Look what we did to the Japanese/American CITIZENS.

Premiums first and then the GOV will jump in cause all of a sudden we can't afford healthcare due to the new freeloaders and then bada boom the Gov will be susidising the whole system . . . God help us all!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tctrojan17

Chiefwoohaw demonstrates exactly why i am not a fan of religion. Most people who are highly religious are not intelligent enough to think for themselves and use logic to work through an issue. What they can do though is run to their book of faith and look up what their religion thinks of the subject and then respond.

On top of that i officially rank chiefwoohaw at about the same incredibly low intelligence level as Steveo. You sir need to go read all of your posts again and pay close attention to them, maybe then you will see just how stupid you sound.

Thanks for showing me another example of an overly religious retard.

Welcome to the board Newbie!

Quote:

Originally Posted by L4CX

Also, did you just post that to diss Chiefwoohaw or did you forget to post your opinion on the subject? It takes less intelligence to make fun of someone then it does to try and figure out what they are saying and have a conversation with them.

Most people who are highly religious are not intelligent enough to think for themselves and use logic to work through an issue. What they can do though is run to their book of faith and look up what their religion thinks of the subject and then respond.

Not to flame you, but you're making statements almost as silly as Drew: Without meeting every single "highly religious" people that exist (a large number, I assure you) - how can you make the claim that "most" are lacking in intelligence?

I will concede that some of the wackiest people with religion are also the most outspoken, but that is not a true sample of the norm. Fred Phelps ring any bells?

I don't think this but I'm sure some will freeload and not work to supply their own benefits. It will cause premiums to rise to the new amount of freeloaders on the system.

I suppose thats a fair assumption given the state of our union... But IMO its trivial to the fact we are condoning and in fact trying to legislate even more discrimination.

Im not going to pretend Ive had nothing but gay friends my entire life to tell some sort of anecdote... But I have known a few, some couples and now via my wife am good friends with a homosexual here in Lansing. Ive never gotten the impression from any of them they were looking for, or would ever drop to the level of becoming, "freeloaders."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw

Yeah, basically that's exactly right. It is excepted by society so therefore it's not a big deal due to the role your wife has of supposedly raising your children.

Sounds like mob rule. Sounds like a lack of individualism... "I do what I do because its what society, i.e the "masses" want. We should all strive to live our lives as we wish without intentionally negatively impacting our fellow citizens. There are people who live their lives in a manner that I do not agree, but who am I to voice that disapproval in a manner that tries to persuade them to my way of thinking? If what they are doing does not effect me or my ability to provide for my family, or anyone elses... carry on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw

Realistic, what does religion have to do with anything?

It sounds like you are coming at this from a religious standpoint in that the only point of sexual intercourse is for procreation. Thats why I asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw

Premiums first and then the GOV will jump in cause all of a sudden we can't afford healthcare due to the new freeloaders and then bada boom the Gov will be susidising the whole system . . . God help us all!

You are again making an assumption that, and perhaps correctly so but its still an assumption, homosexual couples will end up on Government assistance.

OK, I haven't read through this entire thread because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I just have one piece of input here. My best friend for the past 20 years is gay. We have had this discussion more times than we can count. The way I feel about women is the way he feels about men. Started during puberty, same time as me. Has known from the start that he likes men. Grew up in a strict Catholic household, went through bouts of depression because of mixed feelings, etc,. Still not close to his father since coming out.

Why would he choose this? It's genetic, just the way some people have blue eyes. Can't change it, "pray it away", or anything like that. There are lots of studies on how homosexuality is present in all aspects of nature, not just humans. Yes, that means your dog might be gay, too.

You'd never know it to look at him, speak to him, or listen to him. He is not politically active, flamboyant, or "sissy". He's just gay.

My husband does "freeload" off my insurance but I pay for his insurance premiums. I pay 70% of my insurance premiums and my employer pays 30%. Any company I have worked for makes you pay more if you have a spouse or kids so I don't know how it would qualify you as extra money from the government freeloaders.

Not to flame you, but you're making statements almost as silly as Drew: Without meeting every single "highly religious" people that exist (a large number, I assure you) - how can you make the claim that "most" are lacking in intelligence?

I will concede that some of the wackiest people with religion are also the most outspoken, but that is not a true sample of the norm. Fred Phelps ring any bells?

Seriously - it's like saying all people from TC are pussies.

We are all pussies so does that mean i am right?

Alright alright, i used the word most when i did not mean it to that extent, I will rephrase it with the word many. Many of the people i have met that are overly religious fit what my previous post said.

L4CX - Honestly my opinion is who cares if it is a choice or if you are just born that way, that in no way shape or form has any merit on how decent of the person they are. I have met a few gay people that are cool guys and respect the fact that i have a fiance and am not gay, i have met others that were complete d-bags who had no respect at all. I do not think they should show immense amounts of PDA but i feel that way regardless of if they are straight or gay, and i say they are still humans entitled to the same rights as you or I.

This whole they are destroying the sanctity of marriage crap is stupid. Civil unions i understand are the same thing as marriage pretty much but if these people want to be recognized as married then let them, it does not hurt you in no way at all.

Who are we to judge and make stipulations regarding what people can or can not do.

I feel this same way about overly religious people, i could give two shits what you believe or do if it makes you happy, but when you use your beliefs to justify not allowing other human beings to live their lives the way they want then i care.

Guess I just see the financial side of the decision. I don't personally care if they buttfuck till they die . . . it's the insurance angle that I look at. Oh and same goes for 24 year old "children" that now are eligible to be covered under mommy and daddy's insurance if the are in college. . . once again the Financial side of things.

Also find if funny that since I oppose them then I'm a religious zealot . . and I'm the close minded one?

But good guess cause yeah, I figure they will burn in hell but that's God's decision.

Alright alright, i used the word most when i did not mean it to that extent, I will rephrase it with the word many. Many of the people i have met that are overly religious fit what my previous post said.

L4CX - Honestly my opinion is who cares if it is a choice or if you are just born that way, that in no way shape or form has any merit on how decent of the person they are. I have met a few gay people that are cool guys and respect the fact that i have a fiance and am not gay, i have met others that were complete d-bags who had no respect at all. I do not think they should show immense amounts of PDA but i feel that way regardless of if they are straight or gay, and i say they are still humans entitled to the same rights as you or I.

This whole they are destroying the sanctity of marriage crap is stupid. Civil unions i understand are the same thing as marriage pretty much but if these people want to be recognized as married then let them, it does not hurt you in no way at all.

Who are we to judge and make stipulations regarding what people can or can not do.

I feel this same way about overly religious people, i could give two shits what you believe or do if it makes you happy, but when you use your beliefs to justify not allowing other human beings to live their lives the way they want then i care.

I have no problem with them getting the same Benefits. I just don't want them to call it marriage. Otherwise, I could care less.

It matters because it's a redefinition of what marriage is. Something we've actually talked about already. What gives the Government the ability to change that definition?

If they can't change the definition then why not make up a new name for all unions and use that?

And, Like I've stated, Alot of us Religious nut jobs () see Marriage very sacred because of the language that Jesus uses in the bible to define the relationship between the church and him self. How are we supposed to use that parallel when the definition doesn't match, or even align with, Biblical teachings? That's why I care. Doesn't mean everybody else should.

So you guys keep teaching it how you believe but just because you believe marriage to be that does not mean everyone else needs to. Regardless of what the "real" definition of marriage is, I see marriage as nothing more then two people who love each other and want to make their relationship set in stone for a lack of better words. It is late and i am tired so i may not be conveying what i am trying to say properly.

L4CX i do not really view you as a religious nutjob, your opinionated but you seldom try to jam stuff down anyone's throat. You are also very logical and have valid points more often than not. I say believe what makes you happy i just do not want to always be hounded by the more intense believers that my family and i have to change or we will burn for it.